Tea leaves are for brewing tea, not for theological illumination

April 24, 2013

Folks are free to predict, and even argue for, the end of celibacy and the ordination of women as deacons if they want, but those arguments must be made competently lest serious confusion be sown along the way. Fr. Michael Orsi’s recent essay “Reading the tea leaves” concerning these and related matters calls for several corrections. I highlight just some.

Infallibility

Orsi writes: Doctrinal faith is divided, according to Cardinal Josef Ratzinger . . . into two main areas; infallible and non-fallible.

First, what is the difference between “infallible” and “non-fallible” doctrines, and who divides Church teaching into these two categories? Cdl. Ratzinger surely did not. In any event, Orsi uses this odd classification to contrast, e.g., the truths professed by the Nicene Creed with, e.g., Church teaching against the ordination of women to priesthood. Now, these kinds of concepts are distinguishable but not along the lines Orsi offers (his ‘infallible/non-fallible’ vocabulary offers no distinction). Rather, I suspect Orsi is trying to get at, not the degree of certainty with which these assertions are made (for both are infallible), but rather, the character of the response that the Nicene Creed demands (namely, credenda) compared to the response owed to Church teaching against female priestly ordination (namely, tenenda). It is a common but serious mistake to confuse “infallible” with “objects of belief”, the doubt or denial of which objects is heresy punishable by excommunication (cc. 750 § 1, 751, 1364), with, well, with lots of other assertions that, while still infallible, are “doctrines to be held” definitively, the rejection of which constitutes opposition to Catholic doctrine and is punishable by a just penalty (cc. 750 § 2, 1371, 2º).

Liturgy

Orsi writes: Francis’ washing of women’s feet on Holy Thursday . . . is an example of where a bishop may take liberties based on local need. This break with the rubric by the Pope is problematic insofar as it gives license for the makeshift liturgies that have plagued the Church.

I am not sure how these two sentences even go together, but this must be said: Pope Francis’ foot-washing action tells us absolutely nothing about the authority of local bishops to “take liberties based on local need”. Francis’ action was prudent or not, but either way, it was pontifical in nature, not episcopal. Similar unilateral action by a bishop would be illicit per Canons 838 and 846.

Female ordination

Orsi: So, how will women deacons come about? Very similar to the way altar-girls did.

I cannot imagine what parallel exists between a divinely instituted sacrament on the one hand and an ecclesiastically instituted function on the other that results in female deacons as it resulted in female altar servers, but Orsi continues and so must we.

Orsi: After a long period of illicit [female deacon] ordinations . . .

Stop. This scenario is ridiculous. The attempted ordination of women to any rank of Orders is invalid (c. 1024), constitutes sacramental simulation (c. 1379), represents an abuse of episcopal office (c. 1389), and results in automatic excommunication (CDF decree, 2008). Is Orsi seriously suggesting that such grave crimes are on a par with letting girls serve at Mass and that Rome will wink at such offenses until there are so many ‘female deacons’ that the point is not worth defending? Not a shred of evidence suggests Rome to be anything less than decisive in repudiating attempts to ordain women. Not one shred. Still continuing…

Orsi: It is doubtful that any canonist or for that matter the Pope realized that the Code permitted altar-girls.

Complete balderdash. Many canonists realized that the 1983 Code permitted altar girls well before the 1994 Roman interpretation confirmed it, including: CLSA Comm (1985) 168, 648; Commento al Codice (1985) 136-137; CLSA Adv. Op. (1985) 25-26; Code de Droit Ann (1990) 153; and GB&I Comm (1995, but written before 1994) 131-132. Moreover, to imply that popes can be surprised by the Code and feel themselves stuck with a disciplinary canon they don’t like is nonsense. Popes can change disciplinary canons as they see fit (c. 331). If popes do not want altar girls, we would not have altar girls.

Celibacy

Orsi writes: A bishop may believe that providing the Eucharist is more important than the discipline of celibacy. This is known as epikeia.

The phrasing muffs the notion of epikeia but, to be clear, if a bishop were to ordain a married Roman Catholic man to priesthood without apostolic dispensation he would act gravely illicitly against Canons 1042 and 1047 and an epikeia argument about the Eucharist or anything else would avail him not one iota. Look, I do not dispute that clerical celibacy is in crisis, let alone do I dispute that celibacy (correctly understood) is disciplinary (correctly understood). But to label an observance in the Church these days as “disciplinary” is tantamount to describing it as optional or even trivial; it certainly always prefaces a call to abandon the practice in question. Those beating the “merely disciplinary drums” on celibacy, however, let alone those implying that only similarly slim barriers prevent female ordination, are setting a whole lot of people up for a whole lot of confusion and/or disappointment. What can I say, experts should not treat the reading public that way.

Well, okay, there are several more problems in Orsi’s essay, but other projects beckon now, so let me conclude by suggesting that those interested in these important matters avoid ecclesiastical tasseography and instead use tea leaves as they were intended, namely, as a way to make a delightful drink for sipping over the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the 1983 Code of Canon Law.

Gratianus: Iuris Pater Canonici

Edward Peters, JD, JCD, Ref. Sig. Ap.

Dr. Peters has held the Edmund Cdl. Szoka Chair at Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit since 2005. He earned a J. D. from the Univ. of Missouri at Columbia (1982) and a J. C. D. from the Catholic Univ. of America (1991). In 2010, he was appointed a Referendary of the Apostolic Signatura by Pope Benedict XVI. For more infomation on Dr. Peters, see CanonLaw.Info.

Disclaimers and Acknowledgements

1. This blog represents my views and not necessarily those of other individuals or institutions with whom I might be associated.

2. I strive to present my opinions in a manner consistent with the values expressed in Canon 212 § 3, but final judgment on that rests with competent ecclesiastical authority.

3. In commenting on current events, I draw only on reports as they appear in publicly-available sources.

4. I fix obvious textual errors or infelicities of expression in my posts promptly (even if an email version has already gone out on it), but after a few hours, I either leave the text in place or clearly mark amendments as amendments.

5. Most translations of the 1983 Code are taken from the CLSA revised translation (1999, and largely available here); all translations of the 1917 Code are mine.

Christ among the Doctors

Hoffman (1926) shows lawyers in the four stages of their careers learning from the boy Jesus.

Would St. Thomas More blog?

I still haven’t made up my mind whether I shall publish it all. [S]ome people are so humorless, so uncharitable, and so absurdly wrong-headed, that one would probably do far better to relax and enjoy life than worry oneself to death trying to instruct or entertain a public which will only despise one’s efforts, or at least feel no gratitude for them. Most readers know nothing about [canon law] – many regard it with contempt [and] find everything heavy going that isn’t completely lowbrow. . . . Some are so grimly serious that they disapprove of all humor. . . Others come to different conclusions every time they stand up or sit down. . . . They seize upon your publications, as a wrestler seizes upon his opponent’s hair, and use them to drag you down, while they themselves remain quite invulnerable, because their barren pates are completely bald, so there’s nothing for you to get hold of. (Thomas More to Peter Gilles, 1516)

St. Raymond Penyfort, op (1175-1275)

St. Raymond composed the Quinque Libri Decretalium from 1231 to 1234. His text provided the organizing principles of canon law for nearly seven centuries until the promulgation of the Pio-Benedictine Code in 1917.

Hmm…

A political wag once remarked that the fastest way to start a ruckus on Capitol Hill was to point out what the Constitution actually says. It seems that something similar may be said about what happens in the Church when someone points out what the Code of Canon Law actually says.

Good advice from Cdl. Burke

The first thing I would tell a student of canon law is, canon law is not for the faint of heart !

More good advice from His Eminence:

“The too rapid growth of practice without a clear and solid theoretical foundation has its most serious consequences in the confusion regarding the very foundations of law”. Burke, Lack of discretion of judgment (1986) at 85.

Despite what others might say, I don’t

• know everything there is to know about canon law (although I know quite a lot);

• think every issue in the Church is canonical (although many more ecclesiastical issues are canonical, or can be usefully assessed from a canonical perspective, than most folks realize);

• have access to inside information (although I have been in Church work for some 35 years and have picked up a few things along the way);

• think bishops are always right (or always wrong, or are always anything, for that matter, except Successors to the Apostles);

• think Vatican II was the end of the Church (or that it was the greatest event since Pentecost);

• have authority to enforce canon law (although I write, in part, to encourage sound enforcement of, or compliance with, canon law by those under its authority);

• think the West is doomed (although it faces some tough times ahead and needs Christ more than ever).

Follow this blog via email

Besides the RSS and Twitter options above, you can follow this blog by Feedburner. Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Note that these e-mailed versions of my blog posts go out very quickly (indeed, it seems, instantaneously), but sometimes they contain typos or other obvious errors that I don't catch until I can see the posted version, as noted above (DA 4). I regard the versions posted here as representative of my thoughts.

Why comments aren’t enabled here

I have thought about enabling comboxes on my blog for some time. My reasons for declining at present are:

First, open comboxes are notorious occasions for grave sin (calumny, detraction, falsehood, even blasphemy). I won’t have it here, of course. But that leaves only monitored comboxes, and monitoring comboxes takes time—more time than I have and certainly more time than I wish to devote to, well, monitoring comboxes. Of course, if someone comes up with a way for me to get paid for monitoring comments, I’m open to reconsidering—my children are always screaming for more caviar and diamonds.

Second, the purpose of this blog is not primarily to air my, let alone others’, opinions (itself a legitimate purpose, of course) so much as it is to educate people on an important yet complex area of Christian life, namely, the operation of canon law. This is not to imply that I don’t express my opinions on various matters, even less is it to claim that everything I post is the only way to view XYZ, but rather, to underscore that most of what this blog does is explain the canonical aspects of issues in the news. I know of no other site in cyberspace that does that, and I think such a specific focus is a good thing.

Now the kind of education offered here can take place quite well, I think, without entertaining questions (questions that are often ill-formed and/or inappropriate for many others in my audience), and without entertaining comments (comments that, if right, would add little to what I already said, and if wrong, would often require considerable time for me correct). It seems better for all concerned if I just post what I think canon law or closely related disciplines say about this matter or that, include some appropriate references for folks to verify my sources, and leave it at that. Time will tell whether my analysis of various issues is, in the main, right or wrong.

Third—and mind, this comes from someone who often posts in others’ comboxes!—I find that combox discussions never really resolve anything; they are effectively interminable in that, no matter how thoroughly one might have answered a question or addressed an issue, there will always be one more bloke out there able to reword the matter in such a way as to suggest that it has not yet been adequately aired. And that is not counting the people who post as breand-new questions things that were expressly dealt with just a few posts higher up! Sheesh! Anyway, I grant that this could just be the lawyer in me talking, but I like it when judges rule (usually correctly) that X is irrelevant so drop it, or that Y has been asked-and-answered so move on, or that the burden of proof in case Z has been satisfied so the matter is closed. No one really performs that kind of service in any combox I've yet seen. Perhaps no one can.

Anyway these are some of the reasons why I haven’t enabled comboxes on this site. Perhaps another canonist will start a blog that does allow comboxes. If so, I’d be happy to go over and post comments there!

Best, edp.

Another hmm…

A professional knows the limits of his knowledge. An amateur does not know the limits of his knowledge. A dilettante does not know that there are any limits to his knowledge.

Ex aliis

• Sometimes I think Ed Peters is just using his knowledge to tell us things we don't already know.

• Peters is a perfect example of how celibate old men in the Vatican think.

• Huelga decir que el trabajo de Edward Peters es sumamente útil.

• A Protestant would never say things like what he says.

• Peters obviously has no idea what it costs to raise a child these days. True, but I have some idea as to what it costs to raise six.

• Il est un éminent canoniste Anglophone.

• I see people disagree with Peters, but they almost never have a reason, except they don't like what he said.